When I’m not in the bathroom painting the porcelain canvas, I’m waging war with the Cyclops. But while Jackson’s adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s famous novel lacks one-eyed beasts, it’s no doubt masturbatory. From a meandering script (conceived by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Jackson, and Guillermo del Toro) that doesn’t stick to a single body of Tolkien’s fantasy porn collection — referencing other works to “pad out” the world — to the decision to shoot in 48fps (frames per second), The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey isn’t a quickie. It’s a ceremonious nut to how Peter managed to flip three feature-lengths from one 300 page book. And after his last directorial work, “The Lovely Bones,” was panned, it’s no wonder he’s overcompensating.
On the technical preference, Jackson explained “It’s less eye strain and you have a sharper picture, which creates more of a three-dimensional world.” He then added, “48 does make for a smoother experience.” Unfortunately, if your movie looks like shit, it doesn’t matter how smoothly it runs. At best, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey plays like cheap video game cut-scenes; other times, it floats on bad BBC soap waters. With dated, plasticky sets and cliché character designs, Peter makes this one of the finest breakthroughs in the art of bad filmmaking. Thanks to his frame rate experimentation, quieter scenes fare better than the actiony ones, which are viciously cartoony. As a rule though, each shot is drowned in Instagram-esque filters. It’s like watching a nature documentary from the ‘70s — bad dramatizations attached.
For the clueless, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey chronicles Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), a small-bodied gentleman comfortable with his ordinary life. The great wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen), however, sees there is more to Bilbo than Bilbo sees himself. To help reach his full potential, the spell-meister volunteers the Hobbit to join a quest led by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), a legendary warrior, to reclaim the lost Dwarf Kingdom of Erebor from the dragon Smaug. With twelve other dwarves, they embark on a journey through Middle-earth, where trolls, goblins, and Orcs clash dicks for supremacy.
One can nitpick, but the movie’s few successes are warm bath fantastic. McKellen’s performance as Gandalf bubbles up your soul, while Freeman’s Bilbo is scented candles likable. Armitage’s rough turn as Thorin compliments them both. For fans of the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, Elijah Wood’s Frodo also has a short cameo. And if that doesn’t satisfy you, Andy Serkis splashes by as Gollum — another favorite. Nine years after “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King,” the actor still steals the show without showing his face. The fascinating scene Bilbo and Gollum share is one of the rare moments where the film isn’t a pruned finger.
Overall, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the first installment of Jackson’s “The Hobbit” prequel trilogy is indeed an unexpected journey. For the director and his faithful devoted, it’s a trek down a marsh of mediocrity; to me, it began an adventure into my bathroom for an inspired review.
'Movie Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)' have 26 comments
December 16, 2012 @ 7:19 pm Guano
I could try but I don’t think I could have said what a failure this is any better.
December 16, 2012 @ 7:32 pm MushroomCloud
Gollum is the absolute best.
December 16, 2012 @ 7:47 pm Batterup
You’re awfully harsh in your critique (what’s with the bathroom references?). I haven’t seen it, so I can’t comment but most every other critic thought the opposite of you.
March 1, 2013 @ 7:01 pm Mariusz Zubrowski
Dunno, was oddly inspired by the bathroom.
December 16, 2012 @ 8:13 pm 404Redirect
Peter Jackson, as expected, has done an amazing job.
December 16, 2012 @ 8:44 pm critically_kurt
Filming in 48fps was a brilliant choice. It took a few minutes to adjust to but it made the picture leap off the screen.
December 16, 2012 @ 10:02 pm Marty Was
It definitely made the picture more vivid but it also made all the VFX look like VFX. The actors did not blend with the generated backgrounds or extras. Nothing looked real.
December 16, 2012 @ 8:47 pm DistrictM
Not Jackson’s best. It was 40 minutes too long, and everything about the movie’s highlight–the fight in cave against the goblins and the goblin king–was terrible.
December 16, 2012 @ 8:54 pm nerys
I’m into this for Smaug. The rest as far as I’m concerned is padding material.
December 16, 2012 @ 9:18 pm LaRosa
It was pretty good. Not near the epic fantasy I was expecting or the one Peter Jackson was obviously aiming for.
December 17, 2012 @ 1:11 pm DoraFanatic
How do you know what he was aiming for? This film plays out very much like The Fellowship of the Ring did. I don’t hear you complaining about that movie, do I?
December 16, 2012 @ 10:00 pm CHC
Whether it is true to the book is immaterial. Whether it measures up to LoTR is immaterial. What is material is whether The Hobbit is a well-crafted, entertaining movie. It is both plus some.
December 16, 2012 @ 10:38 pm Frick
@Mariusz
It’s not just a trek down a marsh of mediocrity, it’s an EXHAUSTING trek down a marsh of mediocrity.
December 16, 2012 @ 10:46 pm Ogates
If you can remain focused through the beginning of the movie which is stuck in the Shire for 30 minutes too long, you’re in for a great ride.
December 16, 2012 @ 11:14 pm LadyRix
Unlike the reviewer, as a long time fan of Tolkien’s work, I am happy with Jackson’s movie adaptation of this (even if he didn’t follow the book word for word) and am looking forward to the sequel.
December 17, 2012 @ 2:08 am Periwinkle
Saw this yesterday and loved it.
December 17, 2012 @ 6:36 am Newthrone
Maybe someone can explain this to me: why didn’t the giant eagles just transport the adventurers to their destination??
December 17, 2012 @ 3:45 pm SeeWeed
Because the book says they didn’t.
December 17, 2012 @ 9:19 am Trag Lee
Haven’t seen so many divided reactions! Now I have to see for myself!
December 17, 2012 @ 9:22 pm Zen Dispenser
Saw it. It isn’t on par with LotR but its still a nice addition to the lore
December 18, 2012 @ 3:05 pm Ezmerelda
Yes, before you say it, I know it’s adapted from a ‘children’s book’ but I thought it was too light-hearted. Even the battle scenes were dumbed down with slapstick. Nothing about their quest felt serious.
December 21, 2012 @ 9:15 pm Greg A.
I’ll give it to Peter Jackson, the man sure knows how to make a long-winded movie.
December 28, 2012 @ 10:37 am Sire JimBob
It’s one third of a trilogy – save the criticisms until 2014 when “There and Back Again” gets released and grade as a whole piece of work. The current crop of naysayers may sing a different tune then.
January 3, 2013 @ 11:10 am Tom Valance
I’m glad so many people are willing to state the truth about the Hobbit, which will only please those already affected by Jackson’s previous meanderings. I thought the Lord of the Rings was interminably, but I have no words for this; I’m going to save myself a good six hours by avoiding the other two.
January 14, 2013 @ 3:57 pm LOTR fan
I almost fell asleep during the first part of the movie, I haven’t seen such an overhyped movie in a long time..
March 5, 2013 @ 10:08 am Greg Eichelberger
Uh, the whole point of a review is to write about the currently-released film. “Save the criticisms until 2014??! And then write about the FIRST installment again? People may disagree with the author’s conclusions (and I still have NO idea what his bathroom and masturbation references have to do with ANYTHING), but this film has a whole lot of faults to overcome.